The NY Times ran an op-ed over the weekend by Tom Andersen, author of “This Fine Piece of Water: An Environmental History of Long Island Sound.” Andersen is strongly opposed to Broadwater, the 1200-foot liquefied natural gas terminal that has been proposed to float in Long Island Sound.

In November, the FERC released its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Broadwater and found that it would not cause negative environmental impacts. Anderson argues that scientists and government agencies are "virtually unanimous" in declaring the EIS inadequate. (He says it's one thing for environmental groups to advocate against such a facility --- predicted, he writes -- but when scientists and government agencies voice opposition, that's a whole different story.)

He writes:

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the New York State Office of General Services and Department of Environmental Conservation, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, and the Connecticut Liquefied Natural Gas Task Force all argue that there's simply not enough information and rigorous analysis in the impact study to decide if the environmental impact of the project outweighs the benefits.

The Broadwater issue is bound to get even more political, and everyone's expecting Gov. Spitzer to weigh in once the state Department of State issues its report on Broadwater in April or May. There are some folks over at Newsday who believe that Spitzer could surprise us all...